McCain: No, Palin Did Not Mean That
| Sun Sep. 28, 2008 10:49 AM PDT
If you watched the debate, you know John McCain attacked Barack Obama's position on Pakistan. Here's how Obama articulates it: "If the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out."
McCain said at the debate that it was unwise to "threaten" Pakistan in this way, and that Obama's position was a product of his inexperience. "You don't say that out loud," McCain said. "If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government."
But there's a problem. On a recent campaign stop in Pennsylvania, Sarah Palin was asked by a voter if American forces should move from Afghanistan into Pakistan to pursue terrorists. Palin responded, "If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should."
Whoops. That's Obama's position. So today McCain was in the painful position of having to retract his vice presidential pick's statement:
"She would not…she understands and has stated repeatedly that we're not going to do anything except in America's national security interest. In all due respect, people going around and… sticking a microphone while conversations are being held, and then all of a sudden that's—that's a person's position… This is a free country, but I don't think most Americans think that that's a definitve policy statement made by Governor Palin."
Translation: Just because my candidate for vice president said something into a microphone doesn't mean it should be taken seriously or that she actually believes it.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Shoot, the US has a long history of taking out anybody we don't want in power, even when our own laws are against it. It's about time someone came out and said it. Obama didn't say you don't work with Pakistan, but at least he's being honest, and that might get us more points in the long run.
Well, wait a second. She actually made some similar remarks re: Pakistan in her interview with Gibson. From the transcript:
GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5795641&page=4
Submitted by buzzwaffle (not verified) on Sun Sep. 28, 2008 1:11 PM PDT.
Clearly what happens in Pennsylvania, should stay in Pennsylvania.
Sarah Palin is actually a stand-in for Risa Levitt Kohn, the museum curator in San Diego who
(1) presented herself as a "Dead Sea Scrolls scholar" even though she had never published anything on the topic;
(2) explained, several months later, that she was not an "expert" on the scrolls and had only a "tangential knowledge" of the topic;
(3) asserted that "you don't want to confuse people" by telling them the truth about the current state of research on the Dead Sea Scrolls; and finally
(4) declared that the scrolls are "not really Jewish texts" (a view with which, incidentally, the Jewish Museum in New York appears to disagree).
Kohn's peculiar declarations did not stop the North Carolina Department of the Environment (of all places) from hiring her as a "scientific consultant" on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And, although the thought makes me cringe in terror, Sarah Palin's statements might not stop the American people from voting for her either...
See, e.g., http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/did-christian-agenda-lead-biased-dead-s...
I find it kind of refreshing, actually, to have a Prez. candidate with a Veep candidate who's not so carefully schooled as to align 100% with the positions of the candidate, 100% of the time.
Does MoJo think it preferable when we get something like a G. Bush Sr. calling Reaganomics "Voodoo Economics" in the primaries, and then act like he's 100% bought in after he becomes the V.P. pick? He's suddenly disconnected his internal logic filter, and that's what you guys want??
Not to say that I'm going to vote for McCain/Palin because I'm not. Any more than I'm going to vote for Obama/Biden who are showing EXACTLY that Same Primary/General Election metamorphosis that Reagan/Bush-I did.
I'm voting for 'Change' that's more than a slogan.
I'm confused by McCain's excuse. When Palin is out campaigning she's not actually campaigning but giving voters her personal opinions? If the candidate isn't giving official campaign views while campaigning, when DOES she do it?
Only when she's reading off a teleprompter?!?
There's what she says and there's how it's heard. If so many supposedly "liberal" voters can support Obama's platform of preemptive military strikes on the territory of sovereign nations (which is very Bush-like, if you ask me), I don't find it hard to imagine less sophisticated voters buying into Palin's statements even if they -- like Obama's -- seem riddled with contradictions ... particularly since she says them without blinking and without stuttering.
It's going to get even more painful.
McCain will spend most of Friday dissecting what Sarah Palin did (or didn't) say, depending on whether she speaks in English or pidgin-TV-Swahili during the debate.
I'm looking forward to hiding behind the sofa and peeking out for the cringe-fest on Thursday.
bambalabamba says:
"It's going to get even more painful.
McCain will spend most of Friday dissecting what Sarah Palin did (or didn't) say, depending on whether she speaks in English or pidgin-TV-Swahili during the debate."
That may be wishful thinking. I think Palin will do well in this debate. The McCain campaign has insisted on a structured debate that will favor her. The debate questions will not be like the open ended questions in her disastrous interviews. Palin will be given a question and have a determined amount of time to answer, if she is trained properly she will know the answers to any question she will be asked and know how to answer appropriately.
Ben Daggett wonders: We're going to wake up on Nov. 5th and this will all just be a bad dream, right?
Right.
On the morning of November 5th, America will seem like a bad dream, no matter which wing of the Mobius Party claims the Oral Office.
Of course, for a little over half the voters, it'll be a while before they notice.
"Translation: Just because my candidate for vice president said something into a microphone doesn't mean it should be taken seriously or that she actually believes it."
Not quite. What they were really saying (as they have before) is "Just because my candidate for vice president said something into a microphone doesn't mean she said it".
I asked a friend of mine who supports McCain and Palin a simple question.
What makes Palin qualified to be VP?
His reponses in order.
1. She exciting.
2. She can hunt and field dress a moose.
3. She was govenor of Alaska for 2 years.
4. She was mayor of a town of 9000 persons.
5.Obama is tied to Govenor Blagovich and the Illegal campaign contributions scandal.
These are real responses, people actually think this way!
These are the reasons a person votes. Sadly, he has not been the only one to answer in this fashion. This post is coming from Southern Illinois.
Dave Fennell writes: I asked a friend of mine who supports McCain and Palin a simple question.What makes Palin qualified to be VP?
A better answer than the one he gave you would be:
The Constitution of the United States of America. In Article II, Section 1.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at
the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office
of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not
have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a
Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death,
Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said
Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President..
So there you have it.
The official, Constitutional qualifications to be prez or veep. And that, my friend, is the Highest Law of Our Land.
